muldvarp

5 ms·

61.
by muldvarp 8mo ago
Not really, no. If you use a regex library it is very likely that 80% of that code is effectively dead code.
62.
by muldvarp 8mo ago
I'd love for you to write a C compiler that does this and then realize how much dead code there is in your C projects.
63.
by muldvarp 8mo ago
A C compiler is a relatively simple program (especially if you don't want any optimizations based on undefined behavior). If a large part of the userbase is unhappy with the way most modern C compilers work, they could easily write a &
64.
by muldvarp 9mo ago
Everyone who works for a living is about to have a really bad time.
65.
by muldvarp 9mo ago
Xr0 isn't any simpler than for example Frama-C. In fact one of the simplest (but still useful) systems for statically tracking ownership is Rusts borrow checker, which the authors of Xr0 say is _too_ simple.
66.
by muldvarp 9mo ago
The initial sign for Xr0 never seemed promising for anyone with experience in formal verification. Neither the code nor the ideas they presented were new. I asked them multiple times to clarify how their project differed from the dozens of
67.
by muldvarp 10mo ago
> and I explicitly do not want it used to train AI in any fashion Then don't release it. There is no license that can prevent your code from becoming training data even under the naive assumption that someone collecting training dat
68.
by muldvarp 10mo ago
Do you define "AI slop" as "easily identifiable as AI"?
69.
by muldvarp 10mo ago
> What's the end game? What makes you think that there is an "end game"? Someone figured out how to make computers be able to create content that is costly to distinguish from human-made content. Someone else is using it t
70.
by muldvarp 10mo ago
The quotation marks indicate that _I_ don't think it is. Especially given that modern deep learning is over-paramaterized to the point that it interpolates training examples.
71.
by muldvarp 10mo ago
> Unfortunately as I see it, even if you want to contribute to open source out of a pure passion or enjoyment, they don't respect the licenses that are consumed. Because it is "transformative" and therefore "fair&quot
72.
by muldvarp 10mo ago
This to me is the most ridiculous thing about the whole AI situation. Piracy is now apparently just okay as long as you do it on an industrial scale and with the expressed intention of hurting the economic prospects of the authors of the pi
73.
by muldvarp 10mo ago
But the entire promise of AI is that things that were expensive because they required human labor are now cheap. So if good things happening more because AI made them cheap is an advantage of AI, then bad things happening more because AI ma
74.
by muldvarp 10mo ago
Well yes? Have you played the game? It's got lot of content and is very pretty. Those high resolution textures will just take space. You could obviously decrease the graphical fidelity but I'd guess that most players (me very much
75.
by muldvarp 11mo ago
> Probably most of it at least, because under your supposition that the AGI will replace labor we'll get incredibly cheap products and services as a result. No, we will get cheap _labor_, not necessarily cheap _products_. > You w
76.
by muldvarp 11mo ago
You assume that detecting AI content is trivial. It isn't.
77.
by muldvarp 11mo ago
> I guess just don’t go there. How do you know? A lot of the stuff I see online could very much be produced by LLMs without me ever knowing. And given the economics I suspect that some of it already is.
78.
by muldvarp 11mo ago
Writing nice sounding text used to require effort and attention to detail. This is no longer the case and this very useful heuristic has been completely obliterated by LLMs. For me personally, this means that I read less on the internet and
79.
by muldvarp 11mo ago
> Again, you can invest, today, in AI stocks and ETFs, with just $100 and a Robinhood account. No need to be rich. And then? I'll compensate the loss of thousands of dollars I don't earn anymore every month with the profits of
80.
by muldvarp 11mo ago
> you don't have to be rich to partake. You still need to be rich to partake. Most business ventures will still require capital even in the age of super-intelligence. Super-intelligence will make labor worthless (or very cheap) it w
81.
by muldvarp 11mo ago
There is absolutely no guarantee that those things will happen just because Claude takes your job. Taking your job doesn't require super-intelligence, it doesn't even require human-level intelligence. It requires just enough intel
82.
by muldvarp 11mo ago
> AI research tools are increasingly useful if you're a competent researcher that can judge the output and detect BS. This assumes we even need more Terence Taos by the time these kids are old enough. AI has gone from being complete
83.
by muldvarp 11mo ago
> Code quality is still a culture and prioritisation issue more than a tool issue. AI helps people more that "write" (i.e. generate) low-quality code than people who write high-quality code. This means AI will lead to a larger
84.
by muldvarp 11mo ago
> Keep the volume of output the same, but increase the quality. This will _never_ happen. Output will increase and quality will decrease.
85.
by muldvarp 11mo ago
Yeah, I'm always confused why programmers seem to like this technology given the vast negative consequences it will likely have for us. The upsides on the other hand seem to be the most insignificant things.
86.
by muldvarp 11mo ago
You thought that abundance would trickle down into the pockets of people that have to work for a living? AI will lead to abundance. For those that own stuff and no longer have to pay for other people to work for them.
87.
by muldvarp 11mo ago
> But if you like making computers do things, and you get joy from making computers do more and new things, then LLMs that can write programs are a fantastic gift. Maybe currently if you enjoy social engineering an LLM more than writing
88.
by muldvarp 11mo ago
> Software engineers been automating our own work since we built the first assembler. The declared goal of AI is to automated software engineering entirely. This is in no way comparable to building an assembler. So the question is mostly
89.
by muldvarp 11mo ago
> IMHO the bleeding edge of what’s working well with LLMs is within software engineering because we’re building for ourselves, first. How are we building _for_ ourselves when we literally automate away our jobs? This is probably one of t
90.
by muldvarp 11mo ago
In the grand scheme of things? Yes.

More ›